Talk:Plimer questions Monbiot
91.152.176.153 adding a references tag at the end of the plimer questions monbiot section is a good idea. That way they're closer to the plimer questions monbiot sub-wiki-page, and the notes refs with the references tag at the end of the overarching debate are simply the overhead. I should have thought to do that, so thanks! --Marion Delgado 16:39, September 3, 2009 (UTC) Also, if the wiki acted strange, that's probably me using my Eclipse wikipedia plug in and doing an update at the same time. I would recommend the Eclipse+Wiki Editor Plug-in combination to anyone, anytime - it lets you download a complex of wiki pages and prototype and preview them, and as long as you always first do a download, and update frequently, you won't usually step on anyone else. --Marion Delgado 16:39, September 3, 2009 (UTC) Stirling and "J": At some point I'll probably change both of your edits and put excerpts from the sources you cite in blockquotes - this indents it, among other advantages. If you were just responding to the general picture, I'd move them to the after-notes, but you're responding to the MWP, so it will be more legible if it's all quoted. I think Stirling posts a lot on the net - is roughly what he posted available to be cited somewhere else? --Marion Delgado 16:29, September 15, 2009 (UTC) It might be helpful to have some sub headings that deal with recurring problems with the questions. Certain fallacies show up repeatedly, as various editors have noted. For example confusion over the relationship between water vapor and global warming. Water vapor stores a great deal of heat, it has a great deal to do with the impact of global warming, as water in liquid form does as a transport mechanism, but it isn't a forcing gas except in so far as it might have reinforcing effects from carbon driven warming. Another editor noted the fallacy of arguing that if CO2 is the forcing agent now, it must always have been. There are repeated errors of controlling variables in the frameworks of the questions, and several which don't have good models. It's difficult to find citations that refute assertions based on orificial data. Having a summary section which clearly identifies these in each reply might make this material more useful. As far as the bottom line on MWP, I think I cited the survey paper that includes MCA and solar forcing which nails the bottom line: over the last 2000 years for which we have good proxy data, there is a good correlation between solar forcing and temperature, until 1900, at which point the relationship breaks down. There's also work done on the possible relationship of deforestation and biomass burning, which indicates pretty much the same thing, that until 1725 we can't detect any human impact in climate change, and after 1900 we can see a great deal. Part of the problem, as with dealing with a great deal of captive pseudo-science, is that some of the objections raised are of such poor quality that one could not get a peer reviewed paper published refuting it, and even a letter would be stretching the patience of most journal editors. For example, there are no water vapor forcing models, so how could one write a paper refuting models that don't exist? The sea floor spreading and last water vapor questions make errors that of this kind. Vulcanism is another: almost all evidence indicates that volcanos cause cooling in the short term, and that periods of volcanic activity show cooling. Given some spare time I think I could go through my own edits and improve the formating and cite some important quotes, to make the material easier to read and get at the heart of the objection. Or we might use the talk page to hash out more concise replies on each of these 13. It seems that the reply should include, at minimum: 1. Citations to papers which answer the question should they already exist. In several cases the work is already done. 2. Critique of the question: refutation of logical or scientific error in the question, (e.g. sea floor spreading, sea level changes are from MCA, glacial effects on sea levels.) lack of a model or control of variables, non sequitors and so on. Pointing out where many of these objections are recycled from creationism (extra-terrestrial dust in particular leapt out at me.) 3. References to other questions where similar errors are made, or where there are contradictions. That's something that needs to be pointed out Pimler acts as if "no human forced global warming" is the default coherent position. In fact, it is the other way around, human forced global warming is the internally coherent explanation, and denying it is internally incoherent. There is no "theory of non-human global warming in the present period" but instead several objects to an existing theory. Since I am closest to it, arguing for the MWP as being significant, when the period was drier where temperatures were higher, and then arguing water vapor as a forcing gas is such an example. Arguing against carbon forcing in one place, and then that carbon release from the MWP is the cause of the present warming. Perhaps having a template that would produce nice block organization would be useful. Stirling Newberry 17:39, September 15, 2009 (UTC) Stirling: Mostly I'm gathering from science blogs, etc. the "answers" to these specific problem/questions vs. creating them. As you'll probably note, so far: *I've let the short comments by Andrew Dodds, who summarized all 13, introduce them; *quoted Plimer's problem; *quoted RealClimate's detailed analysis of each problem; then quoted replies either by science posters or commenters on science blogs - including mine, which I cited off of Chris Colose. If it gets too big to read fairly quickly, that might defeat its purpose. There are not many templates on campaigns wikia, which has really handicapped me, my normal process is to download a page and all relevant page offshoots to my Eclipse wikimedia environment, export citations from Zotero on Firefox to Wikimedia Citation format, and be done, but they don't exist (and trying to build them from scratch became so elaborate I felt it was disruptive). I am not putting a high priority on cleaning up the Plimer questions Monbiot transclude, however. When and/if there's resolution on this/action, I'll probably focus on the Monbiot-Plimer Debate superpage, of which this is just one section. Also, could people on this discussion page use the hyphen-hyphen-tilde-tilde-tilde-tilde signatures at the end? It lets you break up what you see at a glance.--Marion Delgado 17:25, September 15, 2009 (UTC) One of the advantages of the wiki format is that it allows synthesizing of information that's out there. When I get a chance I will move the cites down to the references section, which I broke out as a separate header. We could profitably put many of the blocs of comments together, compressing and making more concise the language. Stirling Newberry 17:39, September 15, 2009 (UTC) oh btw ~~~~ let's you escape out wikification.